Thread: Camera Suggestions

Originally Posted by grapedrink

are you talking about the newer IS versions? every review i've read says tthe opposite, example:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._4is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...28is/index.htm

@ F 4
The 70-200 F2.8L is the sharpest, the 70-200F2.8L IS is the second, and the prosumer 70-200 F4L is the least.

Thinkabout who is writing those reviews 99% of the time its amatures that don't have a clue. Secondly As you stop a lense down it ALWAYS gets sharper, until after you reach F11 or so, where it starts to get less sharp again.

Both versions of the 70-200 F2.8L are very sharp wide open, and only get sharper as you stop them down up to about F11. Most people seem to mix up sharpness with depth of field when writing these reviews.

Originally Posted by mtbakerskier

@ F 4
The 70-200 F2.8L is the sharpest, the 70-200F2.8L IS is the second, and the prosumer 70-200 F4L is the least.

Thinkabout who is writing those reviews 99% of the time its amatures that don't have a clue. Secondly As you stop a lense down it ALWAYS gets sharper, until after you reach F11 or so, where it starts to get less sharp again.

Both versions of the 70-200 F2.8L are very sharp wide open, and only get sharper as you stop them down up to about F11. Most people seem to mix up sharpness with depth of field when writing these reviews.

right, however i'm talking about the new F4 IS, not the regular F4.. it appears to be significantly improved.

Originally Posted by grapedrink

right, however i'm talking about the new F4 IS, not the regular F4.. it appears to be significantly improved.

It still inst going to be as sharp at F4 as either of the F2.8 versions. IS lenses ARE NEVER as sharp as non IS glass.

Originally Posted by mtbakerskier

It still inst going to be as sharp at F4 as either of the F2.8 versions. IS lenses ARE NEVER as sharp as non IS glass.

word. i'm just going by reviews not first hand experience. you're the pro, i have no desire to argue with you

Originally Posted by grapedrink

word. i'm just going by reviews not first hand experience. you're the pro, i have no desire to argue with you

Heh. I wasnt arguing, jsut pointing out a few facts. In fact it kinda pisses me off how all of these sites post such crappy reviews as fact...

I mean how about they actually post some real test pics? You wouldnt think it would be that hard for them.

wheee... its photo dick swingin in a whole new forum!

pst: ALL PHOTO REVIEW ARE OPINION!

I would give Klaus's reviews some credence. He has personally run photozone.de for longer than that egotisitical green has been pimping photo.net

His methodology is consistent between reviews. What you cannot control for is variation in the lens samples, but we would assume that Canon L lenses have pretty tight tolerances.

With regard to the f/4 IS... it costs the same as the 2.8 non IS. The size weight difference is not so big as everyone says. The f/4 is less than 1" smaller and only 1lb lighter than the 2.8.

I still think an 70-200 f/4 IS is a foolish purchase because of the availability of the f/2.8 at the same price.

Originally Posted by mtbakerskier

As you stop a lense down it ALWAYS gets sharper, until after you reach F11 or so, where it starts to get less sharp again.

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

eta, my first instinct says diffraction, but it just doesnt seem that its small enough to make a difference. im a little fuzzy on optical physics and what dimension has to be what in relationship to the wavelength of light before weird stuff happens etc etc

Originally Posted by pechelman

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

diffraction

Originally Posted by pechelman

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

eta, my first instinct says diffraction, but it just doesnt seem that its small enough to make a difference. im a little fuzzy on optical physics and what dimension has to be what in relationship to the wavelength of light before weird stuff happens etc etc

Originally Posted by Summit

diffraction

guess i kinda knew it all along then

great link that explains it well
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...ffraction.html

Originally Posted by pechelman

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

eta, my first instinct says diffraction, but it just doesnt seem that its small enough to make a difference. im a little fuzzy on optical physics and what dimension has to be what in relationship to the wavelength of light before weird stuff happens etc etc

One of the Major and older photo mags has ran some prety good tests of nearly every lense evermade, There measuring the actual resolving resolution of the lenses at each aperture, and you will notice, that EVERY lense always gets less sharp at the higher f stops. Ussually occuring just abouve F 11 or so. There was a good site that had all of the mathmatical reasoning behind it, but i dont remember what it was.

Originally Posted by grapedrink

by the way this panning shot is awesome, i've tried to get shots like this a couple of times but never with much success, any tips?

According to the EXIF data, he shot that at 1/40 sec.

Practice following a target. Go stand next to a freeway and practice on the moving cars.

I shot the following at 1/200 sec...but was able to get away with the faster shutter speed cause the motorcycle is moving substantially faster than the above bicycle.

that is awesome

Originally Posted by pechelman

great link that explains it well
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...ffraction.html

I never knew this...

Whats the skinny with Ansel Adams and f/64 then??? I was under the (mis?)interpretation that it was for ultra-sharp images...

Originally Posted by AstroPax

According to the EXIF data, he shot that at 1/40 sec.

Practice following a target. Go stand next to a freeway and practice on the moving cars.

I shot the following at 1/200 sec...but was able to get away with the faster shutter speed cause the motorcycle is moving substantially faster than the above bicycle.

Not so much the speed of the bike as it is the speed at which the wheels are spinning. 1/200 sec might have frozen the wheels on the bicycle. Depending on your angle the pan from the bike to the bicycle might not have been much faster.

Originally Posted by Natedogg

I never knew this...

Whats the skinny with Ansel Adams and f/64 then???

He was an original member of "Group f/64". They were straight photographers...photo purists.

"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth; beyond a certain point definition is actually impaired"--Ansel Adams, June 3, 1937

-Astro

Originally Posted by AstroPax

"Using a small stop only increases depth; beyond a certain point definition is actually impaired"--Ansel Adams, June 3, 1937

Huh...

I guess that still doent answer my question though. Why would he use f/64 if 'beyond a certain point definition is actually impaired'?

He didn't. f/64 is a very rare f-stop... mainly seen on lenses for view cameras (the really large camera he mainly shot with.) This is how these guys separated themselves from the Medium Format and 35mm crowd. Just because the lens COULD go up to f/64 didn't mean they used it that way.

Most of Adams' landscape stuff was shot at f/16 or so, I think, which would put it in the middle of the range for such a lens.

Good Wiki entry on f/64: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64

I gotchya. I was told a long time ago that he built his own camera that went to f/64 so he could get ridiculous depth of field and sharpness.

Anyway, good to know regardless. I knew there were optimal f-stops for certain lenses and whatnot, but never knew the reason.

<edit> Hrrmmmm, I dont wanna sound like that annoying idiot who keeps beating a dead horse, but that "good" wiki article says exactly what you are saying is not true.

Originally Posted by wiki

The term f/64 refers to the smallest aperture setting on a large format camera, which secures maximum depth of field, rendering a photograph evenly sharp from foreground to background.

Originally Posted by Natedogg

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by wiki

The term f/64 refers to the smallest aperture setting on a large format camera, which secures maximum depth of field, rendering a photograph evenly sharp from foreground to background.

<edit> Hrrmmmm, I dont wanna sound like that annoying idiot who keeps beating a dead horse, but that "good" wiki article says exactly what you are saying is not true.

No, it's not saying f/64 will give the best sharpness (as compared to f/32, for example), it's just saying that the more you stop down, the more DOF you will get. Increased DOF, but increased diffraction also. Yeah, the author(s) of that article could have phrased it a little better.

Since we seem to be discussing diffraction relative to large format:

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm

Regardless, no need to over-complicate things. Personally, if I want near maximum sharpness with an f/2.8 lens attached to my D2Xs or D200, I just shoot in the neighborhood of f/8, with a tripod. For example:


280mm, 1/100 Second @ f/8, Tripod

-Astro

Ended up purchasing a used 20D off of Craigslist and a used 70-200 F/4L from Adorama. Took it to ultimate practice this weekend and ended up with a few alright ones and more than a few not so good ones. Just have to learn how to get the focus set faster and know when people are gonna do stuff for me to shoot.

Here's samples. I really liked taking these and look forward to getting more experience:
Push Pass


Sky for the score


Nice form


Next MJ?


Huck it!

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

Ended up purchasing a used 20D off of Craigslist and a used 70-200 F/4L from Adorama.

Nice dude. If you dont mind me asking, how much?

Originally Posted by Natedogg

Nice dude. If you dont mind me asking, how much?

The lens from Adorama was 499. The camera came with a 28-105 F/3.5-4.5, 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 and 18-55 f/4.5-5.6 and was 800. So the last two lenses combined are about 50 bucks or less and the first one goes on ebay for about 120. So figure lenses were 170 and body was 630. Also picked up a 4GB CF card from Adorama for 70, but has a 30 mail in rebate that I have to still take care of.

Originally Posted by Summit

What you cannot control for is variation in the lens samples, but we would assume that Canon L lenses have pretty tight tolerances.

even then, there can be some variances. i remember looking to klaus' reviews last year when i was looking to get a 70-200 f/4.0 and saw that his review indicated that there can be differences between samples of even L glass. (i still went for it though, glad i did - awesome lens, definitely lighter than it's f/2.8 counterpart and much more portable).

mtbakerskier: like summit said, klaus definitely has a method down. whenever i start thinking about new glass, i always look to his reviews first as they're very through and quantitative - i trust his numbers and opinions.

Originally Posted by PearlJam09

Here's samples. I really liked taking these and look forward to getting more experience:

Those look good to me.

But I would have bumped-up the ISO from 100 to at least 200 to get a faster shutter speed at the same aperture (f/4).

Yeah, I know, that's 20/20 hindsight...easy for me to say. But as far as image quality goes, your Canon should handle higher ISO's with no problem....so you should take advantage it.

-Astro